Delhi High Court
Rahul Mehra vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 December, 2013
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Najmi Waziri
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM APPL.17149/2013 IN W.P. (C) 195/2010
RAHUL MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI
with Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocate.
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for R-10/SAI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 19.12.2013
CM APPL.17149/2013
Issue notice.
The petitioner seeks certain directions and an early hearing of the petition as well as the pending applications. This Court notices that despite directions in CM APPL.12612/2013 made on 30.09.2013 requiring the Union of India to respond on specific issues, the affidavit has yet not been filed. In case, the said affidavit is not on the record by the next date of hearing, the Secretary of the Ministry concerned shall be present in the Court on that date.
The Union of India shall file a further affidavit on the issues raised in the present application. These include: -
(1) As to why the International Olympic Committee's requirement that a Governing Council/Executive Committee of the National Olympic Association - in this case the IOA, should not exceed 20 members and also that the General Body should not exceed 110-115 members has not been insisted upon in the present case and instead the numbers have allowed to go up to 184 members in the General Body.
The IOA's Constitution as it stands provides for a membership of 32 members in its Executive Council and of 26 members whom its President has the discretion to nominate.
(2) That apart, as to why, the total membership of Governing Council is far in excess of what is recommended by the IOC. The Court notices in this context that membership of the International Olympic Committee's Executive Board is itself only 14; it regulates Olympic sports of 160 member countries.
(3) The Union of India shall further indicate as to the rationale of allowing participation of State Olympic Association in the election and decision making of the national olympic body. i.e., the IOA in the context of the Sports Code which it has drawn. Prima facie, these bodies do not have any role whatsoever since the national federations for individual sports disciplines are representative of the State units of the discipline concerned. Apparently, the participation of State Olympic Association members - either as members of the Governing Council or as nominated members - entitled to vote and make decisions would result in imbalance in the decision making with regard to the sports administration and particularly the selection of deserving and meritorious sportspersons. Once the National Sports Federation of the sports concerned is represented in the IOA which in turn would have its own composition, the need to allow participation of State Olympic Association appears to be illogical.
(4) In its affidavit, the Union of India shall also indicate as to why the restrictive clause in respect of election of members of the Governing Council and Office Bearers has been permitted. The Court notices that the restrictive clause, besides being complicated, is also ambiguous; it permits virtual monopoly of few people in the administrative and decision making process thus preventing infusion of fresh representatives especially meritorious sportspersons who would have the best hands-on and practical experience to raise and address the most relevant issues concerning their individual sports disciplines and the interest of sportspersons and sports in general.
The IOA receives extensive funding and assistance from the Government of India. In this regard, the Court notices that no restrictive conditions have been spelt out in the constitution of the IOA with respect to those who are not termed as 'Office Bearer' (defined in Article 14 to include only three posts, i.e., President, Secretary and Treasurer). The IOC Charter in this regard - produced in Volume 6 page 1304 - (Bye Law and Rules 28 & 29, Sub-Rule 1.3) . The IOC constitution is specific. In that the provision made in the IOC Charter would prevail over National Olympic Committee such as the IOA.
The existing Regulations and constitution of the IOA permits what appears to be a glaring imbalance. For the purpose of voting at two positions within the Executive Council, for instance, the National Sports Federations are entitled to three votes, the State Olympic Association is entitled to two votes and the athletes and sports persons are entitled to one vote each as are the representatives of Services Federations [Article 10 (a) of the latest IOA constitution as amended on 8.12.2013]. This too tends to confer disproportionate influence and power in the hands of those who have been in the administration and entrench it for considerable periods of time and at the same time disempowers athletes and sports persons who are marginalised in the decision making and electoral process.
It is clarified that the order dated 13.09.2012 in CM APPL.4351/2012 to the following effect: -
"CM No.4351/2012 (of the petitioner for interim directions)
1. By this application, the petitioner questions the validity of general elections held by Amateur Athletic Federation of India (AAFI) on 14.04.2012. In fact the application was preferred on 09.04.2012 when the election schedule had been announced but the elections had not taken place by that time and were to be held on 14/15.04.2012. When this application came up for hearing, prayer was made that the Court should restrain holding of the elections of AAFI, we chose not to pass the order restraining the holding of elections. However vide order date 11.04.2012, we made it clear that the elections shall be held in compliance with all the provisions of bye-laws of AAFI as well as the Sports Code of the Government of India. It was also stated in that order that only if the elections are held in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, the Government of India shall accord recognition and not otherwise.
2. The elections as scheduled were held on 14/15.04.2012. Submission of Mr. Rahul Mehra is that not only the procedure for holding the elections as per bye-laws has been violated but the Sports Code of the Government of India has also not been adhered to.
3. Replies are filed by respondent No.5 AAFI and the respondent No.1 UOI. Respondent No.5 AAFI has refuted the allegations levelled in this application. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 UOI submits that in compliance of order dated 11.04.2012, the matter is under examination and the Government is looking into the aspects viz. whether the elections were held in conformity with the bye-laws of AAFI as well as Sports Code of the Government of India.
4. Since the matter is being looked into by the Government of India, at this stage it would be sufficient to direct the Government of India to examine the validity of the elections in accordance with the aforesaid. In the process, the Government of India will also consider the objections and issues which have been raised in this application. The Government of India would give hearing to the petitioner as well as the representatives of the respondent No.5 AAFI and would also go into the records that would be produced by the respondent No.5 AAFI in this behalf. We expect a reasoned order to be passed by the Government on the objections that are raised by the applicant. Six weeks time, as prayed, for this purpose is granted to the Government, making it clear that the said exercise has to be completed within the aforesaid period and no further time shall be granted.
5. The Government has provided the consequence of non-recognition / de-recognition. It is also expected that vis-à-vis all other sports federations, where recognition is not granted or renewed, the said consequences shall also entail.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of."
shall continue to bind the parties with respect to the elections proposed to be held and the process for which to commence soon.
The affidavit shall also indicate why the age and tenure conditions are so framed, again permitting virtual monopoly of incumbents to function within the Executive Council and decision making bodies, through rotation.
The Union of India shall file its detailed affidavit in this regard within three weeks.
List on 23rd January, 2014, the date already fixed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J DECEMBER 19, 2013 /vks/